# This election has just changed, Justice Scalia has died **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052 "2016-02-13T22:12:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/301 "2016-02-24T03:34:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’m looking for an atheist federal judge who is a lapsed Scientologist. Eh, they’d just be in it for the security detail. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/302 "2016-08-05T13:06:33Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > The R’s kept looking at Ruth, figuring she would be the one to go first. They didn’t even know how sick their big guy had become. He knew it, but, being human, didn’t admit it to himself or try to find a way to protect his legacy. an update…isn’t it weird how this Obama appointment with the Senate refusing to even talk to the guy has become of no interest at all to the electorate and the press? Trump is so screwed up as a candidate that everything in this part of the campaign is about how screwed up he is, with hardly a moment left over to discuss the real issues people want Washington to act upon. Almost as though it were planned this way. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/303 "2016-08-05T13:34:47Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > an update…isn’t it weird how this Obama appointment with the Senate refusing to even talk to the guy has become of no interest at all to the electorate and the press? > > Trump is so screwed up as a candidate that everything in this part of the campaign is about how screwed up he is, with hardly a moment left over to discuss the real issues people want Washington to act upon. > > Almost as though it were planned this way. Or perhaps Trumps IS actually so screwed up as a candidate and the fact that he is so screwed up IS a real issue that obviates all other issues. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/304 "2016-08-05T13:39:40Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > an update…isn’t it weird how this Obama appointment with the Senate refusing to even talk to the guy has become of no interest at all to the electorate and the press? > > Trump is so screwed up as a candidate that everything in this part of the campaign is about how screwed up he is, with hardly a moment left over to discuss the real issues people want Washington to act upon. > > Almost as though it were planned this way. I think that public interest in Garland’s stalled nomination would have faded over time during any election year. I suppose that’s another issue with the 24-hour news cycle. Something outrageous happens and everyone gets a few days to chew on it before something new happens and they forget. I’m still hoping it costs the GOP dearly in any and all close congressional races, but that would only be guaranteed in a sane, just world, which isn’t the one we’ve got. Anyway, it’ll come right back up to the forefront on 11/9. If Clinton wins, and Obama sticks to his earlier statement that he wouldn’t withdraw Garland, then I suspect that McConnell will suddenly move Garland’s vote to the top of the docket. Especially if the GOP loses the Senate as well. McConnell won’t even try to hide the hypocrisy, he’ll just say that Garland is an excellent candidate and it would be reckless to risk letting Clinton elect some sandal-wearing hippy. All previous statements about how “the next president should select Scalia’s replacement” will be conveniently forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/305 "2016-08-05T13:51:10Z")
> [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > Anyway, it’ll come right back up to the forefront on 11/9. If Clinton wins, and Obama sticks to his earlier statement that he wouldn’t withdraw Garland, then I suspect that McConnell will suddenly move Garland’s vote to the top of the docket. Especially if the GOP loses the Senate as well. McConnell won’t even try to hide the hypocrisy, he’ll just say that Garland is an excellent candidate and it would be reckless to risk letting Clinton elect some sandal-wearing hippy. All previous statements about how “the next president should select Scalia’s replacement” will be conveniently forgotten. But, if that happened it would mean that this principled stand was nothing more than bullshit politics! I refuse to believe that’s possibly what’s been going on with something as important as a Supreme Court nomination! ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2016, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/306 "2016-08-05T13:54:46Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > an update…isn’t it weird how this Obama appointment with the Senate refusing to even talk to the guy has become of no interest at all to the electorate and the press? Not weird at all. “No new developments regarding \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” is never going to be a dynamic or interesting news story. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/307 "2016-08-07T19:27:19Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Not weird at all. “No new developments regarding \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” is never going to be a dynamic or interesting news story. to many of us, the composition of the Supreme Court is orders of magnitude more important than whether Trump is wacky or Hillary is a Wall Street stooge. So, who gets to name the next two or three justices should be the real issue in the campaign, not whether Trump is obviously non-President material, or Hillary said, or didn’t say, that the Benghazi attack was made by people who were only transitionally pissed at us or were permanently pissed at us. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/308 "2016-08-08T07:00:56Z")
Someone recently cited an article explaining why the whole SCOTUS appointment thing is vastly overblown, in contrast to all the Right-to-Life SCOTUS alarmists who think the world will end if Hillary’s allowed to make a SCOTUS appointment. It’s just another false motivation to keep the little Indians in line. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/309 "2016-08-08T07:29:00Z")
> [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > I think that public interest in Garland’s stalled nomination would have faded over time during any election year. I suppose that’s another issue with the 24-hour news cycle. Something outrageous happens and everyone gets a few days to chew on it before something new happens and they forget. I’m still hoping it costs the GOP dearly in any and all close congressional races, but that would only be guaranteed in a sane, just world, which isn’t the one we’ve got. > > Anyway, it’ll come right back up to the forefront on 11/9. If Clinton wins, and Obama sticks to his earlier statement that he wouldn’t withdraw Garland, then I suspect that McConnell will suddenly move Garland’s vote to the top of the docket. **Especially if the GOP loses the Senate as well. McConnell won’t even try to hide the hypocrisy, he’ll just say that Garland is an excellent candidate and it would be reckless to risk letting Clinton elect some sandal-wearing hippy. All previous statements about how “the next president should select Scalia’s replacement” will be conveniently forgotten.** Heh. Would 40 Democrats in the Senate be able to stop the confirmation? “The next Senate should confirm Scalia’s replacement,” and all… ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/310 "2016-08-08T08:41:18Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Heh. Would 40 Democrats in the Senate be able to stop the confirmation? “The next Senate should confirm Scalia’s replacement,” and all… Obama could stop the appointment \*if \*he wants to, even after a vote. Doesn’t need the Senate Dems to fall in line. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/311 "2016-08-08T08:53:32Z")
Granted. But since he’s on record as having no plans to do so, I wondered if the Dems in the lame-duck session could manage to throw the nomination to Hillary, and quash any rear guard action McConnell and his crowd might try. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/312 "2016-08-08T12:57:08Z")
Since it’s currently 54-R, 44-D, 2-I in the Senate, the Democrats couldn’t vote down Garland without some help from the Republicans. Since the Republicans mostly fell in line under McConnell, I doubt they’d help the Democrats vote Garland down knowing he’d be replaced with someone more liberal. Anyway, I really hope the Senate Democrats don’t do that. It’s always good to get another instance of “no, both sides really _aren’t_ equally as bad” for everyone to determinedly ignore the next time Republicans do something outrageous. Still, if Democrats can be the sane, mature, responsible ones for long enough, more and more people will hopefully come to see the Republicans as the obstructionist children they are. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/313 "2016-08-08T13:04:02Z")
Could the Senate ignore Obama’s hypothetical Garland nomination withdrawal? It seems like the whole nomination thing isn’t particularly documented. President sends over a name, Senate votes after presumed sober reflection is the basic theory. But if Obama says, nah, I don’t want Garland anymore, but the Senate goes ahead and confirms him, what stops him from taking the seat? I see a difference if Obama says “not Garland but instead \”, but a straight “never mind”? I doubt there is precedence, so someone smart will need to speculate. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/314 "2016-08-08T13:04:41Z")
Yeah, “Republicans Are Obstructionist Children” is old news. “Republicans Nominate Nutcase for President” is fresher… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/315 "2016-08-08T23:51:27Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Could the Senate ignore Obama’s hypothetical Garland nomination withdrawal? > > It seems like the whole nomination thing isn’t particularly documented. President sends over a name, Senate votes after presumed sober reflection is the basic theory. > > But if Obama says, nah, I don’t want Garland anymore, but the Senate goes ahead and confirms him, what stops him from taking the seat? I see a difference if Obama says “not Garland but instead \”, but a straight “never mind”? I doubt there is precedence, so someone smart will need to speculate. Pretty sure when President Obama withdraws a nomination, it has the legal force of him saying _“I do NOT nominate this individual.”_ For the Senate to ignore the withdrawal and vote to confirm would amount to the Senate naming and appointing the candidate. Which it does not have the power to do. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/316 "2016-08-08T23:52:49Z")
> [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > Since it’s currently 54-R, 44-D, 2-I in the Senate, the Democrats couldn’t vote down Garland without some help from the Republicans. Since the Republicans mostly fell in line under McConnell, I doubt they’d help the Democrats vote Garland down knowing he’d be replaced with someone more liberal. So, no, the Democrats would not be able to prevent a vote taking place, right? ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/317 "2016-08-09T00:06:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Pretty sure when President Obama withdraws a nomination, it has the legal force of him saying _“I do NOT nominate this individual.”_ For the Senate to ignore the withdrawal and vote to confirm would amount to the Senate naming and appointing the candidate. > > Which it does not have the power to do. I think I recall that with some nominations that were not going to go through, it was the nominee who withdrew his or her name. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/318 "2016-08-09T01:06:50Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > So, no, the Democrats would not be able to prevent a vote taking place, right? I’m pretty sure that McConnell, as majority leader, has control over whether hearings and a vote are scheduled. All the Democrats could do is vote against Garland. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/319 "2016-08-09T03:26:28Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Heh. Would 40 Democrats in the Senate be able to stop the confirmation? “The next Senate should confirm Scalia’s replacement,” and all… > [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > Since it’s currently 54-R, 44-D, 2-I in the Senate, the Democrats couldn’t vote down Garland without some help from the Republicans. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > So, no, the Democrats would not be able to prevent a vote taking place, right? > [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > I’m pretty sure that McConnell, as majority leader, has control over whether hearings and a vote are scheduled. All the Democrats could do is vote against Garland. Read about _ **filibuster** _. It takes 60+ votes to end one. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2016, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052/320 "2016-08-09T11:09:15Z")
Ah yes, forgot about the filibuster. I still think it’s unlikely that the dems try to block Garland, but I concede that they have their vehicle should they choose to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-election-has-just-changed-justice-scalia-has-died/746052.md?page=17)